Enneagram Care Board Archive

Re: Dude, don't try to jump in on a discussion without thoroughly reading it first [ Boards: Main, Type4, Movie, Care, Chat ][ Top 10 ] [ HOME ]

Re: Dude, don't try to jump in on a discussion without thoroughly reading it first

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Enneagram Care Board ]

Posted by Mikko (193.234.247.51) on May 25, 2002 at 04:02:42:

In Reply to: Dude, don't try to jump in on a discussion without thoroughly reading it first posted by Bartholomew (63.214.68.188) on May 24, 2002 at 13:38:33:

: That's Emily's argument, a few posts up in the thread. This was my counter to it:

: : : : "Practice" is not the same as "do." Just because someone is not doing murder at the current time doesn't mean that they don't practice murder.

: The point of that is that to practice something, one need not be doing it right at this moment. The "now" of practicing something is a duration of time, not the momentary "now" of doing something.

--Right now you are trying to change the issue in order to face what little is left of your position. The issue was, all the time, that pork is being a hypocrite, preaching against what he practices. It simply doesn't matter what "now" really means here. Pork preaches against what he practices himself, by your definition. And your need to be right is tiresome.

: The moral you should derive from this exchange of words is: "Don't try to be mean to people without being very sure of your position first." As this situation illustrates, you'll just get slapped down.

--You really have a fake buffed ego protecting non-existant self-esteem. (It's "Six integrates to Three" in real Enneagram btw) If there's any moral here, it's that don't try to prove your point with BS comments like above. It will always backfire, sooner or later.

Follow Ups:

You are so stupid, I don't know why I even bother arguing with you. Bartholomew (63.214.73.65) 11:53:22 05/25/02 (5)
- You know Mikko (193.234.247.50) 17:20:01 05/25/02 (4)
  - Re: You know Bartholomew (63.214.85.7) 18:46:24 05/25/02 (1)
    - Re: You know Mikko (193.234.247.50) 03:51:48 05/26/02 (0)
  - Mikko, Emily (68.13.146.250) 18:38:49 05/25/02 (1)
    - SINCE WHEN ARE YOU! EVER WRONG EMILY? FLUCK YOURSELF YOU LOUSY ARROGANT LITTLE HYPOCRITICAL SNOB. K.B. (64.12.102.166) 19:01:17 05/25/02 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : That's Emily's argument, a few posts up in the thread. This was my counter to it: : : : : : "Practice" is not the same as "do." Just because someone is not doing murder at the current time doesn't mean that they don't practice murder. : : The point of that is that to practice something, one need not be doing it right at this moment. The "now" of practicing something is a duration of time, not the momentary "now" of doing something. : --Right now you are trying to change the issue in order to face what little is left of your position. The issue was, all the time, that pork is being a hypocrite, preaching against what he practices. It simply doesn't matter what "now" really means here. Pork preaches against what he practices himself, by your definition. And your need to be right is tiresome. : : : The moral you should derive from this exchange of words is: "Don't try to be mean to people without being very sure of your position first." As this situation illustrates, you'll just get slapped down. : --You really have a fake buffed ego protecting non-existant self-esteem. (It's "Six integrates to Three" in real Enneagram btw) If there's any moral here, it's that don't try to prove your point with BS comments like above. It will always backfire, sooner or later.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Enneagram Care Board ] [ FAQ ] careboard/messages/4859.html

Your Ad Here